Copyright Infringement Processing Fee remains at $25
September 5th, 2012 at 4:03 pm by David FarrarChris Keall at NBR reports:
The government is keeping the fee for an infringement notice under the file sharing law at $25, Commerce Minister Craig Foss said this afternoon in a briefing paper to cabinet.
NZ FACT – representing the major Hollywood studios – had wanted the fee dropped to “pennies”.
The Recording Industry Association of NZ (Rianz), representing multinational and local music labels, submitted the fee needed to be dropped to $2 or less for it to send a serious number of infringement notices.
This is excellent news. A drop would have seen ISPs not getting reimbursed for the costs they incur in processing these notices, and could have led to an avalanche of them.
The briefing paper reveals the number of notices sent by four of the five largest ISPs:
Telecom: 1238
Vodafone: 417
TelstraClear: 398
Orcon: 115
What I am interested in, is how many got second strikes or third strikes. If those who download copyrighted material stop after a first strike warning, then the regime is working effectively.
Related posts:
- $25 cost set for copyright complaints
- The first copyright third strike
- Copyright Tribunal case withdrawn
- The TCF Copyright Code
September 5th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
DPF,
Or they’ve just disguised their activity more effectively.
Vote:September 5th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
This should still not be legal. Shame on National for sucking up to the media companies.
There are far more important things than 14 year olds downloading MP3s.
Vote:September 5th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
You could also wonder about false positives. There is no downside to getting it wrong.
Vote:September 5th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Tristanb, you could use the argument “There are far more imprtant things than…” for pretty much anything.
Vote:As much as you try to trivialise it, illegal downloading is theft.
September 5th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
bc, illegal downloading is not theft, it is copyright infringement.
Vote:September 5th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
NZ crimes act definition:
“Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a) dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property; or
(b) dishonestly and without claim of right, using or dealing with any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property after obtaining possession of, or control over, the property in whatever manner.”
Common point seems to be “depriving any owner permanently…”
Vote:September 6th, 2012 at 7:24 am
What I don’t get is why people continue to illegally download music when music streaming sites like Spotify or Grooveshark let you listen to almost any song whenever you want.
Vote:September 6th, 2012 at 7:45 am
What I’d like to know is what has down loaded. Music movies TV? And if some user said” no i did not down load new moon”, can the movie studio prove it.
Vote:September 6th, 2012 at 8:23 am
NZ has largely a user pays philosophy for services – if the cost plus usual margin to the ISPs is $25 per infringement notice, then that’s what the companies should pay. Outrageous that they should think NZ’s internet users should subsidise their business.
Vote:September 6th, 2012 at 9:54 am
Most other govt agencies and councils charge far more for ‘processing fees’ – $98 for a Wellington CC building permit, $150 to film on DoC land. In comparison $25 is a subisdy. Shouldn’t we be asking why the govt is giving this on the cheap?
Vote:September 6th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Copying does not equal “taking”.
While not directly applicable to NZ law, the SCOTUS in Dowling v United States (1985) found:
The phonorecords in question were not “stolen, converted or taken by fraud” for purposes of [section] 2314. The section’s language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
A similar argument would presumably be upheld here.
Vote: